January 7, 2010 -- Los Angeles Times (CA)

CA: Giving Students Priority Over Inmates Will Test Governor

By Shane Goldmacher and Larry Gordon, Reporting from Los
Angeles and Sacramento

At the center of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's State of the
State speech Wednesday was a proposal that outside of Sacramento
might seem like common sense: Mandate that the state invest more
dollars each year in its public universities than in locking
people up in prison.

But to many inside the Capitol, that idea appears all but
unattainable.

The plan -- and the reaction to it -- highlights the disconnect
between the priorities of voters and the reality of the state's
shattered finances and a policymaking process that often seems
byzantine.

"In concept, it absolutely makes sense to everyone,"
said Thad Kousser, visiting professor of political science at
Stanford University. But "when you look at the trade-offs
that the state might face to get there, it gets a lot harder."

The proposal for a constitutional change that would require
more spending on higher education than prisons was the key headline
as Schwarzenegger delivered his final State of the State speech,
in which he also asked legislators to approve a jobs creation
program and urged them to join him in pushing for increased funding
from Washington.

The governor's plan aims to bring back the days when the state
funneled more money into University of California and California
State University classrooms than into its prisons. It has been
at least five years since that has been the case. It comes at
a time when tuitions are soaring and course offerings are being
cut.

The state's public universities, long considered an economic
engine and a source of pride for California, have proved to be
an easier target for budget cuts than other major programs, which
are protected by politically powerful unions, deep pocketed corporate
interests or federal laws limiting the state's ability to cut.

"What does it say about a state that focuses more on
prison uniforms than caps and gowns?" Schwarzenegger said.
"The priorities have become out of whack. . . . Thirty years
ago, 10% of the general fund went to higher education and 3%
went to prisons. Today, almost 11% goes to prisons and only 7.5%
goes to higher education."

The governor called for a constitutional amendment that would
prohibit corrections spending from outstripping funds for higher
education by 2014-2015. The plan would require approval from
lawmakers and voters.

University leaders said they were delighted that the governor
was championing the proposed amendment, which UC President Mark
G. Yudof called "a visionary way to address the issues."

Charles B. Reed, chancellor of the 23-campus Cal State system,
acknowledged that gaining approval for the measure would require
"heavy lifting," but said he thought it ultimately
could win favor with the Legislature and voters.

"It's a step to begin to change the culture of California
back to investing in California's future rather than just paying
expenses for California's failures," Reed said.

But lawmakers have been unable to trim the corrections budget
for years. Voters and politicians alike have approved years of
stiffer sentences and stricter rules for parolees -- driving
up the prison population. The result has been a prison network
bursting at the seams, with federal judges taking control of
prisoners' healthcare and ordering the state to either release
tens of thousands of inmates or boost prison spending by billions.
Lawmakers so far have chosen to keep spending.

Although some legislators applauded the governor's goal, they
were immediately skeptical of his plan for reaching it.

It calls for cutting spending through privatization -- either
having private companies run prisons or hiring private firms
to supply state-run facilities with guards, doctors, teachers
and other employees. Most current prison workers are part of
a powerful union, the California Correctional Peace Officers
Assn.

"I don't think privatizing prisons is the answer,"
said Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles). "I think
we need to look at why California incarcerates more people than
any other state. We need to look at ways to reduce recidivism
and we certainly need to look at sentencing reform."

Republicans tend to support privatization, but they have other
concerns. Many of the state's financial problems have been exacerbated
by conflicting constitutional mandates already on the books that
dictate increased spending for various programs each year. The
new proposal would be another of those. And GOP lawmakers are
not eager to impose the prison cuts that would be required to
free up money for universities.

"The most essential of government functions is public
safety," said Sen. Tony Strickland (R-Thousand Oaks), "and
we have to make sure that's our top priority."

In the current budget, UC, Cal State and the state's Cal Grant
financial aid program combined to receive about $6 billion, not
including revenues from student fees. The Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation received $8.12 billion, according to the nonpartisan
Legislative Analyst's Office. Under the governor's plan, spending
on UC, Cal State and Cal Grants would have to account for at
least 10% of the state's general fund by 2014-15; prisons could
receive no more than 7%. The guarantee could be suspended by
a two-thirds vote of the Legislature.

Changing that ratio would require the type of deep cuts in
prison spending that Sacramento has long balked at making. Federal
courts also would have to give their blessing. Short of deep
cuts in the prison budget, the only other way to meet the mandate
would be to find billions of new dollars for universities elsewhere
in the budget at a time when the state is facing enormous deficits.

In the 1970s, the share of the state budget set aside for
UC, Cal State and state financial aid was about 13%, nearly four
times as large as the percentage for corrections, according to
the California Postsecondary Education Commission. Funding for
the two sectors drew close in the early 1990s and prisons then
pulled ahead consistently starting in 2004-05, the commission
reported.

Steve Boilard, director of higher education issues in the
Legislative Analyst's Office, questioned the proposed link between
higher education and prisons, even if it might appeal to voters.

"It's apples and oranges," he said of universities
and prisons. "Why should state spending on higher education
be determined on how much we save on prison reform?"

Yudof, president of the 10-campus UC system, said he did not
know whether it was politically wise to link university and prison
funding. But he hailed the governor's plan as "a very useful
opening salvo" to restore higher education funding.

"I don't have any particular argument with corrections
or the need to lock up bad guys," Yudof said. "But
having the best prison system in the world is not going to create
jobs the way having the best university system will."

For the latest drug war news, visit
our friends and allies below

We are careful not to duplicate the efforts of other organizations,
and as a grassroots coalition of prisoners and social reformers,
our resources (time and money) are limited. The vast expertise
and scope of the various drug reform organizations will enable
you to stay informed on the ever-changing, many-faceted aspects
of the movement. Our colleagues in reform also give the latest
drug war news. Please check their websites often.